Ending the Blank Check

How the Ceasefire Compliance Act aligns U.S. aid to Israel with American laws, values, and interests

Over the past couple of years, as the war in Gaza has ground on, Americans have wrestled seriously and painfully with how to approach the issue of U.S. security assistance to Israel. The war in Gaza has ignited conversations – at kitchen tables, in college classrooms, on social media, and in the halls of Congress – about why the U.S. continues to provide billions of dollars per year in unconditional military aid when the Israeli government has used American weapons in ways that violate American values and interests.

J Street, too, has been wrestling with these questions. A few core conclusions have guided us as an organization.

We believe in U.S. support for the security of the State of Israel and the safety of the Israeli people. That commitment is core and fundamental. We believe in a secure, democratic, and Jewish Israel.

We believe that Palestinians deserve freedom, dignity, rights, and security of their own.

Lastly, we believe that U.S. security assistance and cooperation should be provided in a way that advances American interests and values and is in accordance with US law.

Today, everyone who cares about the safety and security of both Israelis and Palestinians must come to terms with the fact that the current system of U.S. military assistance to Israel is failing to advance Israeli security, Palestinian human rights, or the U.S.’s strategic interests.

Under the Netanyahu government, Israeli policy has moved sharply away from a vision of long-term security, regional integration, and peace. Instead, we are seeing policies that entrench occupation, enable settler violence, suppress Palestinian political aspirations, and will lead Israel down a path of permanently controlling Gaza and the West Bank, whether through formal annexation or indefinite occupation.

These policies are devastating for the Palestinian people and for their aspirations for statehood. They are also profoundly dangerous for Israelis, and they undermine U.S. interests by fueling instability, perpetual conflict, and repeated regional escalations that the United States gets dragged into.

Given these realities, J Street has increasingly focused on the core principles that should guide U.S. policy on Israel and security assistance.

First, U.S. assistance should never be a blank check – whether to Israel or any other ally. All assistance must be consistent with U.S. law.

Second, we support policies and legislation that link American military assistance to Israeli actions and incentivize policies that align with U.S. laws, interests, and values.

Third, if Israel pursues policies in Gaza or the West Bank that violate those laws, interests, and values, U.S. weapons should not be used to carry them out.

Finally, the United States should continue to support Israel’s legitimate defensive needs – especially ballistic missile defense – given the very real threats Israel faces from Iran and its proxies.

That brings us to the good news: There is now legislation in Congress that operationalizes these principles – the Ceasefire Compliance Act, introduced today by Congressman Sean Casten and 25 of his colleagues.

At its core, this legislation establishes a simple, common-sense standard: If Israel is pursuing policies in Gaza or the West Bank that are inconsistent with U.S. laws, interests, and values, it cannot use American weapons in Gaza or the West Bank

The Ceasefire Compliance Act enforces this policy by creating a framework that conditions the use of U.S. weapons in Gaza and the West Bank on compliance with basic commitments Israel has repeatedly made – to the United States and to the international community.

Under the legislation, the State Department, Department of Defense, and Director of National Intelligence would be required to regularly report to Congress on whether Israel is meeting specific, clearly defined criteria. These include compliance with the ceasefire, extensive facilitation of humanitarian aid into Gaza, allowing for transitional Palestinian governance to take hold in Gaza, and facilitating the International Stabilization Force entering Gaza. None of these requirements are radical. None are unreasonable. All are steps Israel has already agreed to in principle.

These reports will also assess Israeli compliance with conditions related to the West Bank: prohibitions on annexation and a requirement that the Israeli government take concrete steps to prevent and punish settler violence. Again, these are not new demands – they are promises Israel has made repeatedly and failed repeatedly to uphold.

If the Israeli government is determined to be in violation of any of these conditions, the Ceasefire Compliance Act bans the use of U.S. origin arms in Gaza and the West Bank. This prohibition is enforced through agreements with the Israeli government governing new proposed arms transfers, as well as a requirement for an agreement between the U.S. and Israeli governments that applies to all U.S. origin arms – even those previously transferred. To monitor Israeli compliance with this prohibition, the bill also establishes a dedicated oversight mechanism to monitor whether Israel is complying with this geographical end-use prohibition. If violations of the geographical prohibition occur, this bill authorizes real consequences – including the suspension of all offensive weapons transfers.

Importantly, the bill does not endorse President Trump’s deeply flawed Board of Peace – a problematic effort to undermine and replace the UN with an entity that reports entirely to Trump. Instead, the conditions focus on the parts of the ceasefire and 20-point plan that J Street has long endorsed and that most experts watching this space agree are the best way forward to try and replace Hamas with alternative governance and security mechanisms.

So why does this legislation make so much sense?

First, its conditions are reasonable, achievable, and fully consistent with longstanding American policy. Our assessment is that the Israeli government is not currently meeting these criteria and therefore should not be allowed to use U.S. provided weapons in Gaza and the West Bank. However, these conditions are absolutely possible to meet. Good faith implementation of the existing 20-point framework – on aid, ceasefire compliance, governance, and stabilization – would bring Israel into compliance with the conditions related to Gaza. Ceasing Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s annexation efforts and taking real steps to curb settler violence would bring Israel into compliance in the West Bank. None of this threatens Israel’s existence or security – in fact, it supports Israel’s security

Second, this legislation is fundamentally about incentivizing a change in behavior, not punishment. It does not say, “You can never have these weapons.” It says, “You cannot use American weapons in ways that directly contradict American law and interests.”

That distinction matters enormously.

Third, the legislation explicitly preserves Israel’s ability to defend itself in an extraordinarily tough neighborhood. There are clear carve-outs for Iron Dome, Arrow, David’s Sling, and other ballistic missile defense systems. Israel can – and should – continue to defend itself against attacks from Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, all of whom chose to escalate the conflict starting on October 7, 2023, and the law does not prevent Israel from doing so.

The legislation also ensures that if Hamas violates the ceasefire, Israel is able to defend itself. But some recent instances, where Israel has disproportionately struck Palestinian civilians, for example, killing 30 people in Gaza, including children, in response to a skirmish between the IDF and Hamas fighters coming out of a tunnel, should be considered a violation.

Finally, some ask: Why create a special process for Israel at all?

In an ideal world, there would be no need to. For years, our position has been that U.S. policy toward Israel should look like U.S. policy toward other close allies – no special treatment, no extra scrutiny.

But the reality is that Israel already receives exceptional treatment. No other country receives comparable levels of U.S. military assistance while benefiting from such extensive loopholes and bespoke processes that weaken the application of basic American laws. Israel is, quite literally, the only recipient of U.S. security assistance with a separate, exceptional mechanism for reviewing Leahy Law requirements – the human rights standards that all recipients of U.S. security assistance must meet. And when presidents from both parties repeatedly refuse to enforce existing U.S. law when the Israeli government’s actions render them ineligible for arms transfers, it’s clear that a more targeted approach is needed.

This legislation doesn’t single Israel out for punishment. It moves the U.S.-Israel relationship back toward a more normal relationship.

That’s not anti-Israel. It’s pro-accountability, pro-security, and ultimately pro-peace.

And it’s long overdue.

---

Register for the 2026 J Street National Convention – and don’t forget to use code ‘WOTS’ at checkout for a 20% discount.